{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "While not originally one of my selections during the Ekklesia budget reconciliation process, I have decided to vote in favour of funding this proposal at this time. The academic nature and thoroughness of the research behind Cardano was one of the reasons I chose this blockchain in early 2018. Economic systems should be built with the same rigour as other mission critical infrastructure and the resilience of the Cardano network throughout its lifetime is a testament to this approach. However, this one wasn’t a clear-cut decision for me.\n\nI have debated between abstaining and voting yes on this proposal for a while. My initial thoughts were regarding the sheer amount of this budget being allocated to one entity. Break it out into IOE, IOR, or IOXYZ if you want, it’s all still Input Output. At first, I considered the near 97 million ada proposal for core development, with the recent price increases, to be more than enough to cover any remaining items put in by IO here. On further reading of the proposal PDFs it became clear that each cost breakdown was primarily a dollar valuation and that the ada amounts put forth (as mandated by the Constitution) were a reflection of these proposed work valuations at $0.50 per ada.  Therefore, despite these sizeable asks, I hope that Intersect as administrator holds IO to these numbers and should the value of ada be higher than $0.50 at the time of funding then the ada disbursed should be adjusted accordingly.\n\nIt was also initially confusing as to whether this funding was for 1, 2.5 or 5 years. The proposal outlines a 5-year work programme, to be reviewed at 2.5 years but after closer reading this proposal is for one year of funding. I am uneasy with the idea of being locked into a “research funding subscription model” for 5+ years and I highly recommend that a close eye be kept on how much of these funds are withdrawn or returned to the treasury based on the dollar values requested and the evolving price of ada in this first year. Especially as even a $0.64 ada price would already allow the near 97 million ada proposal for core development to cover this proposed research cost."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}